It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

‘Unprecedented’: Scientists declare global climate emergency; jet stream crosses equator

page: 11
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 04:19 PM
The thing I don't understand is how so many people can have forgotten the real issue here is not arguing over the political correctness of the term global warming.

Forget about that term, and whether or not we are directly causing the relatively recent bi polar nature of the weather around the world.

We are dumping MASSIVE amounts of chemicals (CO2, Methane, Plastic, radioactive waste, Sewage, and countless other things I don't know about) into the atmosphere, land, and water. Obviously those chemicals hurt life and the environment. It doesn't take a scientist to see the effects these chemicals have on organic life.

It's negative. It's not good, and we are exponentially ruining the environment more and more. Yet people are actually spending all their time arguing whether or not humans are causing these weird climate trends?

Who #ing cares if we are or not? CLEARLY what we are doing is NOT good. Even if we are not causing these trends, it is obvious that we can't just pollute and destroy forever? We will run out of healthy Earth eventually?

It's clear that we need to change.

I think TPB love that everyone is busy arguing over it while they rape the world for money>health.
edit on 12016493126201620160349 by LostWoods because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 04:42 PM
a reply to: LostWoods

You are completely correct! But allow me to prove why that is a problem for some global warming zealots. I agree with everything you said...most people would. The only people who wouldn't would be people with an agenda where they don't really give a crap about the environment. In other words...your idea to start addressing our pollution and polluting is completely valid and I agree with you.

Now...try to sell that to the liberals and the climate change gang. What you are going to find is they don't want that logical solution of starting to clean up our act. What you are going to find is "we have to force companies to do this" and "we have to impose fines on people" and "we need a carbon tax". I'd bet ANYTHING on it. And if I'm right...then THAT should be proof that the left want this for control, not for the environment, not for the people...but for control of the country via laws, fines and power.

Test me. Let me know the results.

posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 04:45 PM
Hell...I'll start it off here and now. CALLING ALL MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVERS!!! If everyone agrees to start cleaning up our act, reduce pollution, reduce our level of polluting etc., will you agree to help us meet our mutual goal? you require laws, fines, carbon taxes, etc.

Please let me know. I'm testing a theory here.

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:42 AM
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

But it is not proven to be significantly impacted by humans..

That is incorrect, it has been proven that humans are having an unprecedented dramatic effect on the environment of the Earth, even taking into consideration Earths natural changes and cycles. All of these things, going back into Earths vast history, is recorded into the geology of the Earth so we can determine what occurred in the past and what is occurring now.

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 07:45 PM

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Here is the basis for man-made climate change supporters:

I am wearing a black shoe. Ever since I got this shoe and wear it, I have never been attacked by a tiger. Therefore...I say that my black shoe protects me from tiger attacks. Even though there is no scientific proof of this.

Lets review...

Since the world is warming, even though it has before, and since humans are here and pollute, humans must be the cause of global warming. Even though every scientist will admit that there is no proof of this.

Sound familiar?


Here is the truth: scientists through the 1950's attempt to learn more about the physics of the ocean & atmosphere system and what influences climate. This is about quantitative calculations and measurements based on thermodynamics and radiative transfer. They remember the demonstration by Arrhenius from the early 1900's regarding the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide. When they try to compute the temperature of the Earth from thermodynamics & basic radiation physics of black body or grey body the number comes out quite wrong (too low)---they realize that the atmosphere must be taken into account. This also becomes much more important with the advent of data from spacecraft in the 1960's studying other planets like Venus & Mars: the properties of infrared absorption and transmission in the atmosphere is really critical to determining temperature. Climate is not explicable without the 'greenhouse effect'.

Then, discoveries in ocean chemistry show that contrary to some prior expectations, dissolved carbon would stay closer to surface than anticipated, i.e the oceans would not be a nearly infinite sink/buffer of carbon, and therefore burning of fossil fuels by humans might change the atmosphere's concentrations significantly. Charles Keeling started measuring CO2 with precision too, and found a time series which agreed with this discovery----CO2 levels were definitely going up, and later investigation showed that it was primarily from fossil fuel burning.

The obvious next conclusion is what happens with more CO2? The answer comes from physics: surface gets hotter, because the sky is shining in infrared more than before.

This theoretical understanding was already in place by 1968, when Roger Revelle mentioned the prospect of human-induced climate change to a report for the Johnson Administration on environmental issues; from very simple computations availble then he predicted it would be clear experimentally by 2000. He was right.

Climate change from global warming induced by human-altered atmosphere is based not on statistics, correlations, suppositions, historical investigation, but on physics of atoms and electromagnetism.
edit on 6-7-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 07:52 PM
By the way, the subject of this thread, regarding the "jet stream crossing" has been addressed by professional meterologists and climatologists, and they said it was false alarmism.< br />
This shows that the scientific community is in fact self-critical and not generally predisposed to false alarmism for ideological reasons, contrary to the projections by the denialists (who are skeptical/denialist because of ideological reasons---they don't like the implications and the required solutions).

The alarm over real climate change is justified, when supported by deep understanding and experimental facts.
edit on 6-7-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:05 PM
a reply to: mbkennel

Can I? Just a bit?
Cocka doodle do!

Right down to him not knowing the difference between the polar jets and subtropical jets.

edit on 7/6/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10   >>

log in